My first attempt at drafting a map of my personal learning environment came out better than I expected. I didn’t utilize any of the physical space metaphors I’d planned to use, instead opting for a fast mapping solution through Excel that showed strong relationships (matched edges) as well as weaker relationships (arrows).
You’ll note that I did not limit myself to technologies, let alone Web-based tools as some have been inclined to do. I’ve used all tools, utilities, and resources that make up my actual environment for teaching, learning and professional/creative production.
I know much of the discussion of PLE’s centered on the idea of using technology as an all-containing hub, and while I see significant usefulness in hubs (my own primary hubs are Google Reader, Twitter, and my own blogs) I am beginning to believe that a single hub is not the answer, and PLEs should not be encompassed by a single product or service. For instance, Ron Lubensky defines the primary goal for a PLE as follows:
The primary goal of a PLE for an individual is to bring all the disparate artefacts of interest for learning under a single operating roof. … PLEs are meant to simplify managing these artefacts…
I have two problems with this goal as stated:
- It is akin to the goals of monolithic learning management systems, and seems to vie for a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Scott Wilson with the Personal Learning Environment blog says, “It’s an unfortunate tendency especially in our sector to take a concept (PLE, e-Portfolio) and attempt to reify it as a product.”
- Because individuals with several generally distinct interests likely have multiple origination/entry points for learning, one all-encompassing, multitudinous hub may not be optimum for effectiveness (it may in fact be distracting; I’ve found this to be the case with a fully-loaded iGoogle home page)
Speaking of my several generally distinct interests, I was initially inclined to separate my teaching and creation activities from this map. Arguably not “learning” by some strict definitions, but certainly from a “learning by doing” perspective. At any rate, teaching, creating, and learning seem to me to be inextricably intertwined.
Hi Jared, thank you for considering my PLE article.
Your view of PLE is just the map of where your learning artefacts are located. I was looking at some sort of organising facility.
Remember, I attempted to synthesise commentary up to the date I wrote the article (2006). The debate about PLE as approach or product had already begun. I thought I was clear that such a “facility” might only hold links and your descriptive metadata. IMO, its very shape (including domain categorisation) should be crafted by you, not any software designer. Your iGoogle page and del.ico.us tags might well serve sufficiently as your PLE.
I accept your criticism that most conceptions of a PLE are literally structured hierarchically. I actually don’t think it should impose the entry point, unless it’s more convenient (eg auto-login). Also, I’d prefer a wide, flat index that takes shape through whatever query you might invent in the future.
There is also the issue of keeping track through time. Your map will change.
Again, thank you for making me think about it some more.
I understand your purpose implicitly, and by no means was trying to criticize your approach or definition as much as I am trying to suggest a different approach to defining a PLE. My original thinking of the PLE was very similar to your definition, but as you said that was 2006!
Your points re. the changing-ness of the map are spot on, and must be considered in any rethinking of the definition of PLE.
Thanks for your commentary.
I like your map and admire your bravery. I’ve never tried to map my PLE - I’m too scared.
Nice work on the blog, too. I don’t know why, but I never realized you had one. I saw your site a while back - very nice - but look forward to reading your thoughts on a more regular basis.